The above photo was recently cited by the press secretary for Hillary Clinton, Brian Fallon as proof that Bernie Sanders is on the side of the NRA and therefore weak on gun control. This is coming on the heels of President Obama’s executive actions on gun control. This also comes after President Obama said,
“I will not campaign for, vote for or support any candidate, even in my own party, who does not support common-sense gun reform.”
I have some issues with the notion that not wanting to hold gun manufacturers and dealers liable for the actions of a buyer is somehow supporting the NRA.
- there are no regulations (that i could find) regarding reporting suspicious behavior, or the purchase of a certain amount of ammunition, weapons, etc.
Also, the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 required financial institutions to work with U.S. government agencies to detect and prevent money laundering.
This is done by not just keeping records of transactions but also requiring the financial institution to file 3 types of reports depending on the transaction. They file a CTR if there is a deposit or cash transaction over $10,000.00 in a single business day. They file a MIL for cash purchases of monetary instruments between $3,000 to $10,000. They even have the Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) if there is suspicious activity possibly related to money laundering.
Why am I bringing this up? Well…….the crazy thing is there is no equivalent for this for gun dealers. The executive actions regarding background checks, funding for ATF, and mental health care are great moves forward but unless we will have some requirements for gun dealers/manufacturers that provide the government with the assistance and information that the financial reports give then we are being unfair and infringing on the 2nd amendment right to bear arms by holding them liable. I understand that some may say well people should not buy ammo in bulk. Perhaps you are right, I am not a gun owner so that makes sense to me BUT unless dealers are REQUIRED to report amount of ammo/weapons over a certain amount they should not be held responsible. Currently if they felt something was off but the background check was clear what are their options? If they refuse service do they risk legal action taken against them?
We do not sue car manufacturers for drunk drivers. We do not sue knife manufacturers for murders or injuries.
I support requiring manufacturers/dealers to report transactions that exceed a certain amount and I support providing them with assistance in this through a department at ATF that will review these reports to follow up on them. With a strengthened background check system like what president Obama is putting into place this can be very effective in deterring crime and finding those at risk of committing murders.
Hillary Clinton and other Democrats need to be a bit more pragmatic on this issue and understand that not wanting to make dealers/manufacturers liable is not a moral failing but instead a logical, rational decision. I am a progressive liberal that doesn’t hunt or own guns but I find it ridiculous to hold a group of people liable for something when our congress can’t even agree on background checks. There needs to be a common ground and it seems like Sanders is the only one willing to find it.
What do you think? Leave some comments.